Idaho gun-nut lawmakers freak out over man with gun in state Capitol (irony alert)

This story is beyond priceless. Idaho gun-nut lawmakers are very disturbed about an armed man who walked around the state Capitol building, alongside a tour of Cub and Boy Scouts, in part because he was armed.

And so what? I thought guns made us safer. Why should it matter if the man was armed? He was simply exercising his Second Amendment rights, right? Sure, he might have had plans to murder all the kids, or take out a few state legislators, but that’s the price you pay for our precious constitutional freedoms.

Seriously though, after you read through the story, it’s still not clear, from a gun-nut perspective, what the problem is here? If the guy was creepy because he was tagging along with a bunch of kids, and going through legislators’ desks (another part of the story), then fine, he’s creepy. But the fact that he was armed should have nothing to do with the creepiness because, remember, guns don’t kill people. And in fact, the Idaho state Capitol lifted an earlier ban on bringing firearms into the building, so what’s the problem? He was simply following the expressed intent of the Idaho gun-loving legislature.

As for the Cub and Boy Scouts, there’s an easy solution to the creepy factor here. Just arm the kids too. And any of the legislators who were creeped out about their own personal safety should simply carry guns as well. Then the entire building would be armed to the teeth and picture-perfect safe.

Look at some of the comments from the gun-nut legislators:

“Events like that should disturb all Idahoans,” said House Speaker Scott Bedke, R-Oakley. “It certainly disturbed me.”

Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill said: “To think that somebody is bold enough to have followed these children around with a sidearm in plain sight — who is also bold enough to go through trash cans, take pictures of representatives’ desks and shuffle their papers — all of that created a great deal of concern.”

Did you catch that? Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill indicated that part of the problem was that the man had a “sidearm.” So what? He’s supposed to have a sidearm – he’s a gun nut, and in Idaho you don’t restrict a gun nut’s ability to parade around with his gun, even in the state Capitol. So why did Hill mention it? This is especially odd since Brent Hill is a proud champion of the gun nuts. Take a look at Brent Hill’s record on gun issues – 100% pure gun nut:

So how dare Brent Hill even mention that the man had a “sidearm”? Again, these jokers revoked the prohibition on carrying guns in the state Capitol, so what did they think was going to happen?

Oh but it gets better:

Hill has urged lawmakers to be careful about what they leave on their desks, but he is also concerned about larger security issues. “What happens when six people come and sit in the front row of the gallery with shotguns across their laps?” Hill said. “I sure as heck am not going to leave my senators in there with that.”

Anti-gun bigot.

I thought six people with shotguns across their laps was supposed to make us six times safer. So what’s the problem?

Or are Idaho’s far-right GOP gun nuts experiencing a sudden case of Second Amendment NIMBY?

John AravosisFollow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. John's article archive.

An empire, by definition is ruled by an emperor, empress or oligarchy. None of which are true of the US.
So, we are not an empire by definition.
Additionally, while we maintain bases in many nations, we do not rule those nations.
I’d be interested in hearing which major sovereign nations we’ve invaded and overthrown. I’m aware of small nations that had that happen, but few are the major nation that we’ve overthrown, Iran being one that springs immediately to mind.
As for leaving a mess of things planet wide, we’re about equal with the USSR in screwing up major regions of the planet, both socially and politically.
Few and far between are the saints, internationally speaking, but there are plenty of sinners.

I don’t know if you’ve been keeping up on current events, but we most certainly are an Empire. We have military bases in at least 36 countries, some antipathetic or hostile to us, we’ve invaded and overthrown several major sovereign nations since WWII, and we have the largest armed force in the world (n.b., China’s army has more personnel, but the US has more materiel).

The writer shows his ignorance and lack of understanding that results when one’s thinking is clouded by stereotyping and (purposely?) mis-characterizing the viewpoints of folks with whom they do not agree. Being a “gun-nut” (a definition and mis-characterization that throws our opponents thinking askew at the outset of any discussion) myself, and being surrounded by these “gun-nuts” in the rural hunting environment where I live, I can inform this writer that his conclusions re. hypocrisy are dead wrong. The comments that he mocks as hypocrisy are simply the level-headed thinking that prevails among my gun owning friends. We are for the right to bear arms. We know that there are many studies that bear out our positions, as opposed to the positions of our detractors that are, like this writer’s own position, driven solely by feelings, what-if’s, fears, and all manner of emotional steam, with small regard for the facts. This article smacks of similar diatribes that brand folks who do not want this country to progress farther into European socialism as hypocrites because they approve of, and receive, Social Security benefits and don’t have a problem with food stamps for those genuinely in need. It’s not hypocrisy, John, it’s the level-headed thinking that takes in many factors, weighs them, and attempt to come to a rational conclusion that is perhaps a little to complex for you to understand. Is your world always so black-and-white? I thought you lefties espoused shades of gray? Are you a hypocrite?

Cameras do kill and are killing more and more as they are connected to weaponry. Smart bombs need cameras. The real issue is Man (usualy the men) can use almost anything to assist in killing. As we advance into a far more technological age Cameras will become more important in the prcess of killing. Soon the military will have cameras that are far more sensitive than any eye Nature has created with the ability to attach these not to the Human mind but to a ‘mechanical’ minds even more powerful.

The whole development of the USA war machine is to create an army of ‘drones’ that takes US personnel out of the firing-line. Overarching this military madness is the good old H-bomb.

Just
the bee’s knees of hypocracy. I like guns as long as I am the one doing
the aiming. If the UK had the same gun laws as in Idaho there would be
far more people here killed by them. I can think of many occasions where
I would have needed to use one and especially if guns were readily
available to the general citizenry and defaco the crooks.

I have a much simpler concern – USPSA stages can have up to 32 rounds in a long course. Mag changes take time and reduce your reliability (because you (well, I) drop them).

And I shoot with men and women who can drop a mag and reload while running and aiming – they measure their mag changes and 1.5 seconds to reload and take the next shot is not unusual. Me, more butterfingery, 4 seconds. A swift mag change is merely technique.
Once again, it’s the shooter, not the tool.

But you are correct on the wasting bullets. When I first started shooting (as a further left liberal than most of the posters here), I learned to load mags short so I’d focus on aiming instead of shooting. A great savings in ammo!

Thank you for your post – that’s maybe the most civil and least antagonistic comment I’ve gotten here. Nobody is more intolerant than a liberal with a cause, except maybe a conservative with a principle.

Here’s the deal Uncle. No one is coming to take your guns. However if they do limit you to a smaller magazine size, does it really bother you or take away your freedoms to shoot at the range? Do you not like loading your weapon more often? Do you shoot better when 30 rounds go out within seconds? Take it this way. The only affect of of the “ban” will be saving you money on all the extra rounds you can’t shoot off every second.

Now, that’s not sniveling mind you…. just common sense. Only thing you can come back with is “It;s my right to shoot off more rounds per second dagnabbit!”

That’s the thing. These right wing elite corporate crooks don’t live out in the real world with the rest of us, they are protected in their corporate rich bubbles. Once these Christian fascists find out what the real America is like, they don’t want to live in it, even if it’s the theofascists committing this dystopian theocratic Jesusland lunacy.

Would have been better if the NRA gunloon had slaughtered a bunch of Republican law-making terrorists, taught them the lesson that 90% of Americans already know: NRA terrorism is an epidemic. Christian terrorism is killing our country, killing our kids, destroying our country from the inside out, no need for Islamic terrorists when Christian Republinazis are doing it for them.

Do you have data on drowning deaths vs shooting deaths for other ages?

As a parent of children in the demographic highlighted in this case, and as a one-time lifeguard, I can tell you that this group is the HIGHEST risk group for drownings, and although I don’t have the data I’m pretty sure I can surmise that the under-10 set is NOT the most at risk group for gun deaths.

So this case is apples and oranges in the bigger debate on why it’s considered an affront to the 2nd amendment to keep certain types of weapons/accessories away from the general public.

If you have a pool your personal liability insurance may increase unless you have it fenced and locked, and even with these precautions people have been successfully sued for wrongful death even after someone trespasses and gets hurt or dies. I am not a proponent of mandating per-gun liability insurance for gun owners, mainly because of the logistics involved, but have no problem with removing NRA-Drawn provisions from state and federal laws that prevent a gunshot victim from suing the registered owner of said gun. Don’t lock up your gun and a whacko steals it and uses it? YOUR FAULT! Prepare to be sued. Hope you bought liability insurance when you purchased that gun. Accidentally shot someone in the face while bird hunting? YOUR FAULT! Legal trouble for you!

There will be no single way to prevent gun violence, but doing nothing is what’s killed nearly 2,000 people in this country in the month and a half since Sandy Hook.

Since I didn’t say “you attacked me”, or even use the word “attack”, then your arguments are still projections and pathetic spin in an attempt to deflect from your false equivalence of cameras, Syria & a nightclub fire and you’re still flailing about trying to make a coherent argument.

You were the one who brought up race, therefore it makes sense to conclude you have a problem with non-whites and are projecting your obvious insecurity in a further display of pathetic spin.

But you’re right, I’m so scared of everything that I don’t possess a firearm or feel the need to purchase and carry any weapons around when out in public.

Perhaps best not to accuse others, who don’t own guns, of being scared when you publicly claim you own guns yourself.

So great job of debunking your own blather, is that something you do all the time, or only on special occasions?

By all means, please do continue with the pathetic spin, projection and self-debunking, don’t get bogged down by that whole “logical consistency” thing now.

I can’t earn $10k per year in competition winnings with a paper punch.

An interesting comparison you made, can’t differentiate between a gun and a camera. So, you saw the video of the reporter that was killed when visiting an active firefight in Iraq and ignore the hell out of the AK47’s and RPG, then proclaim intellectual superiority.
Way to suck.
Goodbye you’re not worth my time.

Actually, I have firearms that are not designed to kill anything, they’re competition firearms, designed for precision competition shooting.
They’d suck for hunting, they’re lousy for concealed carry, they’re rubbish for open carry.
They’re designed for one purpose, precision shooting.
The rest are designed to kill game or humans, depending on the model.

And as an owner of a dozen firearms (a handful were inherited), I also hate gun nuts. No reason, only hyperbole.
When it comes to any form of firearm, reason should prevail, not the lack of reason and rationality.

That is why I advocate for taking every semiautomatic firearm that is derived from selective fire military service rifles and their magazines and placing them under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

As well as pistol magazines that protrude more than one inch below the end of the magazine well (a few pistols use the magazine base as part of the grip).

The NFA is extremely effective, since 1934, there has only been one crime committed with an NFA firearm.

And reclassification has a precedent, the infamous “Street Sweeper” was placed under the NFA as a destructive weapon a handful of years ago.
It’s legal, it’s constitutional, it has quite a lot of supporting case law and it’s effective.

Ya know how other things than guns can kill people? I have one really heavy duty paper punch. The four legged security system went to play with her predecessor, so I need to find a substitute until I can cover vet bills. The beauty of the punch is it would not be seen as a weapon, while the gun is quickly recognized …. Damn, this Idaho dilemma is too sweet… Even better than the Morrison nut getting arrested in front of his uber secured and armed house, unable to fire a single shot. :) :) Tomorrow will be practice the right hook paper punch day.

pro-extreme gun folks are plain scared of everything: societal change, gays, powerful women, people of color, presidents of color, loss of masculinity, loss of control, loss of power and fear itself. Being denied the right to carry a weapon of mass destruction strikes extreme fear in their hearts. There’re feeling cornered so they’re gonna rise up amongst themselves and scream any insane thing that makes them feel empowered.

The problem is that they are often scared of the wrong things… The facts they do manage to glean have usually been varnished or exaggerated or otherwise taken out of context to serve an agenda that isn’t their own.

Consider the parents of an eight-year-old girl named, say, Molly. Her two best friends, Amy and Imani, each live nearby. Molly’s parents know that Amy’s parents keep a gun in their house, so they have forbidden Molly to play there. Instead, Molly spends a lot of time at Imani’s house, which has a swimming pool in the backyard. Molly’s parents feel good about having made such a smart choice to protect their daughter.

But according to the data, their choice isn’t smart at all. In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.) The likelihood of death by pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn’t even close: Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani’s house than in gunplay at Amy’s.

In Fitzwalkerstan, that IS the law, including not being able to bring SIGNS into the Capital either since the protests. Concealed guns? OK. Cameras, recording devices, signs and cell phones when they always used to be legal? Not anymore!! Can’t be with more then 5 people w/o a pre-approved permit as that is considered organized assembly now and of course who do you have to get that pre-approved permit through? Walker’s Administration created DOA so good luck with that. There have been over 350 citations issued by Capital police for this alone that people are fighting all on the WI taxpayer dime but “WI is too broke to pay teachers”. I don;t know where I live as it sucks so bad here.

Is there a better word to describe this then just plain old hypocrisy? You made your laws and now you have to live with them and no “exceptions” just because you’re the wingnut legislatures who just got your “liberty, freedom and my 2nd Amendment rights shall NOT be infringed upon” shoved right back in your faces. Suck it up or do what you’re always recommending the rest of us do and arm yourselves. After all, “more guns make US ALL SAFER!!” Start following your own law and your tired old talking points.

Interesting, and hypocritical, how you decry “false equivalence” when playing that card yourself.

Right, you’re the only person who cares about the Sandy Hook victims and survivors, and you show that “concern” with your caterwauling-false equivalence-about cameras, Syria and the nightclub fire, none of which has anything to do with the Idaho gun nuts and their hypocrisy highlighted in this blog post.

Since I can’t physically control your actions, beliefs and utterances, then it’s not my fault you flail wildly and stumble about trying to make a coherent argument with the most pathetic of spin, lashing out when called on your lack of logic.

I’m guessing your last two statements apply far more to yourself than anyone else, guns being involved and only if the kids are White Americans, it’s clear you’ll try any argument to deflect away from the use of guns in these massacres, but fail every time.

I’ll repeat, if your aim is as faulty as your “logic”, then it’s definitely best for society if you don’t handle a gun, please leave that to people who know what they’re doing.

I’ll try one more time. I’ll give you credit – your name is well chosen.

The false equivalent argument is an interesting tactic but has no place in an honest debate, any more than tears or declaring that your opponent can’t use verbs. It’s a pre-emptive strike against an argument you don’t want to or can’t deal with. I don’t accept your basic position of false equivalence.

Here’s how I view it:

– guns and cameras are mechanical objects made by humans
– they can both be used for good or ill, depending on the use and user
– neither of them can act on their own with bad intent
– the common element is the human
– Humans have to choose between good and bad every minute of the day
– Some humans suck at it, from a ‘we’re all in this together’ perspective, and make selfish, bad and crazy choices
– Sometimes they go off and hurt or kill other beings
– The vast majority of people do not do this

– From your statements, I take it you wouldn’t care if the Sandy Hook a-hole had burnt the school down with the kids inside.
– You only appear to care if there’s a gun involved,
– And if the children are white Americans

“What happens when six people come and sit in the front row of
the gallery with shotguns across their laps?” Hill said. “I sure as heck
am not going to leave my senators in there with that.”

You mean in case they want to exercise their Second Amendment remedies?

THAT’S easy. Six of Hill’s senators take out THEIR shotguns and keep them pointed right at them. Or, because there are six people in the gallery, the senators take out their assault weapons and launch a pre-emptive attack.

Because the 2nd amendment was designed to raise an army in times of NEED. we were not supposed to have a full time military with bases et al. So the 3rd Amendment is there to deal with housing soliders.

If I saw that, I would, as you say, head for the exit — but I would also call 9-1-1 and tell them a man with a gun had just entered the store. After about a couple of hundred of those calls, and the store being locked down, the stores might enforce their own policies.

John, I gotta ask again: HOW did you end up on a list that draws out all the RedState, WND-types whenever you post about guns? I’ve never seen any of your other posts draw the crazies in such numbers or as quickly as your posts about guns or gun control. I mean, are these people on call 24/7 to show up and spam websites that may try and influence people to lobby for a curtailing of the 2nd amendment? WTF?!

So you’re just like the “moderate” Christians who will sit quietly while Westboro Baptist spreads their hate, the Catholic church destroys birth control accessibility, and the Mormon church pushes gay kids to suicide… but will be up in arms or having feinting spells the minute an atheist makes a comment about Christian kooks destroying people’s lives.

In other words, take your pearl-clutching elsewhere. If you don’t get why reasonable people are getting fed up with guns in this country, and refuse to see why limiting magazine size or firearm availability might be a good thing for society… then odds are you’re one of the gun NUTS we’re talking about.

While I’m throwing out definitions, I should probably point out that a person who attacks people who are trying to make society safer for children, because such efforts might interfere with his hobby, THEN tries to take the moral high-ground of supposedly caring for kids… that person is called a “sack of shit”.

But even if I called you a big, stupid poo-poo head with boogers for brains… intentionally acting like an 8-year-old… I’d still be showing more intellectual maturity than someone who can’t differentiate the differences between a gun and a camera (or any other tool).

(By the way, if the primary purpose of your gun is to punch holes in paper, you can pick up a nifty hand tool at Office Max that does it a lot more efficiently, quieter, and all-around less drama. Pretty sure the death rate from hole-punches is pretty low too.)

Well, that is, of course, the point. If I saw someone in a line a J C Penneys or the local mall with an assault weapon or any gun for the matter slung across their back I would immediately head for the exits. I don’t think I am alone in that. We are not living in the age of the Hatfields and the McCoys. A proliferation of guns, especially military style weaponry, does not make us safer. It makes any situation more dangerous and unstable. How do you differentiate between the criminal and the non-criminal in that kind of situation? The answer is, when they start shooting. And then it is too late. That is not freedom. That is fear. It is bad for business and it is bad for life.

I think the word you are looking for is melanin… unless for some reason you need to take a nap. Though, melatonin has been shown to cause skin lightening in frogs, so maybe there is something to that. :)

I’ve read (don’t have a citation) that, as Governor of California, St Ronnie freaked out and instituted gun control measures when the Black Panthers appeared in public carrying weapons (exercising their constitutional right.)

I live in Boise. Trust me, the legislators are not concerned with anyone with a firearm inside the Capitol building. After all, they allowed a guy rally to be held just a few days ago where many gun-nuts brought assault weapons inside the building. What they were concerned about was his interest in taking pictures of the documents on their desks and going through their trash. They have now instituted a ban on public visits after 6PM and on weekends. We found out today that this guy is a right-wing gun nut from the area who has saved the taxpayers $112,000 by home schooling his children. Also, the local police refused to investigate the incident since he didn’t break any Idaho laws.

I’m not trying to advance a dialogue with the NRA. There is no dialogue with them. As they made clear by going to the White House meeting and immediately blasting it on walking out the door. That’s like trying to have a dialogue with the religious right or the Klan. My dialogue is with the American people, not with the gun nuts. They’re gone.

Name a primary purpose of a gun that is not killing. You can’t. There’s your difference. And oh my fucking god, if I see one more version of this moronic, unbelievably DUMB catch phrase (too moronic to be called a counter-argument) I’m going to snap and go all anti-tyranny, freedom-ain’t-free, protecting myself and my family, and quite possibly play too many video games, on the next big gathering of sister- fuc… oops, I mean, gun nuts.

What bothers me is the double standard. It’s apparently OK if this nimrod carries his gun on the street, or in the WalMart, or in a bar and endangers my life, but it’s not OK if he brings it into the state capitol. Why is the safety of the legislators more important than mine. Any state that allows people to carry guns should allow people to bring them into state buildings, including courthouses. Otherwise, they’re just pathetic hypocrites.

The gun nuts are pushing the limits all over the place. I was leaving the grocery store in San Antonio 2 days ago and a very intense man entered with a pistol strapped to one leg and a large knife to the other. He was not dressed in the uniform of the police or military. I fear that this is going to become the new normal, crazy zealots expressing their perceived 2nd Amendment right to scare the rest of us to death.

In fairness, his gun issue chart which you show says he thinks citizens should be allowed to carry “concealed guns”. So maybe the guy walking around the capital building would not have bothered him if the guy had concealed guns (perhaps announcing it, so everyone would know they were safer in the presence of an armed defender of the constitution) instead of having a visible gun… :)

The Republicans on the Supreme Court have made a supreme mess of the 2nd Amendment, which clearly by its wording is related to state militias. Any right to bear arms not connected with a state militia should have been lodge squarely within the 14th Amendment and subject to 14th Amendment reasonable restrictions.

It is the height of hypocrisy for judges and legislatures to declare universal gun rights while at the same time cowering behind security guards and metal detectors inside secure court houses and legislative buildings. Kudo for Idaho to be so crazy as to attempt the contrary.

I don’t think I would get too far if I carried a registered, legal fire arm unconcealed to the intersection of 1st Street and Constitution Avenue. These stalwart defenders of the 2d Amendment would have me arrested, thrown in jail and the rest of my life in tatters, Except for Idaho, they talk the talk but do not walk the walk.

I wonder whether these judges and legislators would defend my right to bear a personal nuclear device?
When do gun nuts become terrorists?

“What happens when six people come and sit in the front row of the gallery with shotguns across their laps?”

Oh, I imagine the legislators get freaked out, ban guns from the building, and expose themselves to be hypocrites. I’m fine with that. Sounds like someone needs to organize a travelling band of gun-lovers to march from state capital to state capital, making legislators feel the freedom and sense of safety of having roves of strangers waving guns in their faces.